[NYC mayor Bill] de Blasio said he aims to freeze Uber’s expansion until his regulators can figure out how best to block any attempts to “skirt vital protections and oversight.”...McGurn takes a swipe that might impress you but doesn't work on me:
[Hillary Clinton] fretted that while the “gig economy” may be “exciting” and “unleashing innovation,” “it is also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”...
[I]nnovation by its nature challenges the inner-Elizabeth Warren in so much of today’s Democratic Party. However open Democrats may be to revolutionary new definitions of marriage, the thought that there might be some nonsexual for-profit contracts between consenting adults keeps progressives up at night....To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, making the same options open to different kinds of human individuals. If the state of being married doesn't offer the benefits and protections a given couple wants, they don't have to marry. They can remain single. There's no finite number of married and single slots that people compete for. I know there's an argument that gay marriage diminishes the value of marriage for heterosexual people, and if you believe that argument — the "defense of marriage" argument — you can enjoy McGurn's comparison. But I think it's a very bad argument.
There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow. It won't be a matter of individual choice like staying single versus getting married.
But, it's certainly true that even those who love to pose under the banner "CHANGE" only like some changes, just as those who cry "TRADITION!" have plenty of tradition they'd be happy to dump.
পোস্টগুলি
১৪৩টি মন্তব্য:
People think Uber is great for the same reason that they thought Napster was great: because they have this weird populist idea of how the industry in question works, and the people who actually get hurt simply aren't on their radar. It is not Giant Faceless Corporations who'll be damaged and lose money when people stop taking cabs.
PS the assholes posting at Instapundit these days aren't helping with their catchphrase chortling over "insufficient opportunities for graft".
Ooo, Althouse is in a tizzy. Someone's attacked same-sex marriage!
I get "why" the Left wants to stop the "gig" economy and protect their taxi cartels--they want to protect rent seekers and they want to continue to be able to tell workers and employers what sort of agreements are acceptable between them. This is about control and knowing what's best for others, plain and simple.
Employers prefer the "gig" economy precisely because it enables them to pay an agreed price for an agreed amount and type of work, which the worker can accept or reject. It may not be in the worker's interest to have a set number of weekly hours, or have certain benefits provided (e.g., you may want a higher salary without health coverage, particularly if you get coverage from a spouse or can get a better plan as an individual). But why let individuals decide and negotiate for themselves when some caring person in Washington clearly knows what's best?
The gig economy worked great when the seeing eye dog was put into the trunk by an Uber driver, and when disabled people were refused service.
The argument against gay marriage is that butt fucking is depraved and lethal. (See the AIDS epidemic.)
But it makes a fag hag's twat twitch in excitement.
Men fucking one another in the ass gets you off, prof, because you're a fag hag.
The rest of your spiel is bullshit.
It is a matter of individual choice -- traditional providers can choose to offer a deal that is attractive as that offered by the innovators -- or not. They bear the consequences of that choice. The incumbents don't have any inherent right to the patronage of their (former) customers. And the idea that you can manufacture prosperity through protectionism is absurd.
"But why let individuals decide and negotiate for themselves when some caring person in Washington clearly knows what's best?"
Individuals having to work any "gigs" they can get at whatever meager compensation may be offered can hardly be called "negotiating" for themselves, (unless one thinks slaves on the cotton plantations could be said to have "negotiated" for themselves when they decided to pick cotton rather than be whipped.)
PS the assholes posting at Instapundit these days aren't helping with their catchphrase chortling over "insufficient opportunities for graft".
...but they're not wrong, either.
State licensing IS a scam. A huge one. And it is all about the graft.
Uber tends to be BETTER than taxi services.
"There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow."
Give everyone tenure, eh professor?
Whilst one might justify some regulation on public carriage - such as insurance and perhaps a criminal background check on the driver - exactly what gives a city the wisdom to decide how many public conveyances are the "right" number.
At one point, a taxi medallion in New York City was worth $1 million, all of which was created by the artificial scarcity of the NYC government. Rent seeking as it's known in Economics.
Since medallion owners expect a return on their "investment" the result is to increase taxi rates and to depress driver earnings.
But, of course, the last century of legislative and court actions have maximized certain favored individual rights and minimized economic rights. In 2015 can anyone seriously defend Wickard v. Filburn?
"Mark said...
The gig economy worked great when the seeing eye dog was put into the trunk by an Uber driver, and when disabled people were refused service."
And things like this have never happened with a licensed cab.
Oh, wait.
Anyone who has ever ridden in both a city taxi and an Uber knows that Uber gives a rider much more protection and oversight. (The last cab I was in with my family, the driver was very impressed with how beautiful my children were and wanted to know where we lived. Fortunately the answer was "Not in NYC" and we could pay with cash.)
Your argument that you can somehow couple fag hag depravity with free market libertarianism is doom, prof.
You're head toward being a Nazi. There is no other way to go with the fag hag depravity.
NYC manager of Uber said today on CNBC that he voted for DeBlasio.
Fool.
I don't have a pony in this race, but I thought I'd share my observation that it seems to be the millenials and the limousine liberals who are most excited about the new economy services like uber, lyft, airbnb, etc. and it is their fellow progressives who are trying to clamp down on it. (Oh, the irony.)
Freelancing == slavery?
Don't ever change, Cookie.
The problem with being homosexual... is being homosexual.
It was never persecution or inequality or oppression.
Butt fucking kills.
We're paying a ton in taxes to keep the gay boys alive after their wild party. But, that's really what you're all about, prof.
As the fags and fag hags discover that "gay marriage" doesn't solve the problem of being homosexual (since the problem is innate), they will strike out with ever greater hatred and violence at the imaginary enemies.
You're about to find yourself in a struggle to suppress the Catholic and Mormon Churches, prof.
In other words, in the same position as the Soviets. This is not an accident. It's the inevitable outcome of being a fag hag who's turned on by men fucking one another in the ass.
The problem is the kind of sex that homosexuals engage in, not our reaction to it.
"It is not Giant Faceless Corporations who'll be damaged and lose money when people stop taking cabs."
You know, people don't necessarily have that high an opinion of cab drivers either.
Robert Cook said...
"But why let individuals decide and negotiate for themselves when some caring person in Washington clearly knows what's best?"
Individuals having to work any "gigs" they can get at whatever meager compensation may be offered can hardly be called "negotiating" for themselves, (unless one thinks slaves on the cotton plantations could be said to have "negotiated" for themselves when they decided to pick cotton rather than be whipped.)
People choose to become an Uber driver. People choose to use Uber. No one is forcing either party into this arrangement. This is how free markets work. I'll go as far to say that the "gig" economy has been forced on us citizens by onerous taxation. Congress passes a law that everyone working forty hours must buy health insurance or pay a tax. This is the action. Employers now only hire part time workers. This is the reaction. Consequently the marketplace adapts to the new reality. Not by giving into the demand of taxation, but by arranging the marketplace to avoid the tax.
And yes the democrats are furious because there IS insufficient opportunity for graft and therefore control.
More people keeping more of the money THEY earn is a good thing and good for the economy.
"Individuals having to work any "gigs" they can get at whatever meager compensation may be offered can hardly be called "negotiating" for themselves, (unless one thinks slaves on the cotton plantations could be said to have "negotiated" for themselves when they decided to pick cotton rather than be whipped.)"
Uber drivers are like slaves now? I'm not even sure where to begin with that. But keep in mind the alternative to "taking a lousy gig because you need the money" usually isn't "getting a better, benefits-laden, full time job" but rather "worse alternative than the lousy gig".
No one has to drive for Uber--in fact, no one has to drive commercially at all. But having the option of taking what Uber offers is better than the alternative, and if it wasn't? Then they'd be doing the alternative in the first place.
"Freelancing == slavery?
Don't ever change, Cookie."
Yeah, I missed that part of Uncle Tom's Cabin where Legree told his slaves that he'd pay them extra money for driving around and picking up fares, and that they of course could turn down the jobs and the money.
AA: There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow.
Yes, outlets like the WSJ are of course happy-facing the "gig economy", it's what they do. But the regulators just want to regulate - it's not as if the Democrats are interested in seriously addressing the real whys and wherefores of the disappearance of "traditional jobs" with "desirable benefits and protections". Hey, they wanted a vibrant Third World country, they got it - and that means a regulation and tax-evading "shadow" economy.
It won't be a matter of individual choice like staying single versus getting married.
Sorry, but it isn't different when you do it. When you make "individual choice" the first premise of your social/ethical system, one that overrides any other value, this is where you end up. Everybody gets to play. You want untrammeled "choice" about the things you want, and don't want to hear about the negative effects that they might have on society in general, or about how they end up restricting the freedoms of individuals whose choices you disapprove of.
Both you and the WSJ glibertarian agree: "I (or the people whose actions I approve of) should never have to limit our choices in the name of the 'greater good'. That would be tantamount to slavery!" You just disagree about which categories of choice should be respected, and which ignored.
But, it's certainly true, that even those who love to pose under the banner "CHANGE" only like some change, just as those who cry "TRADITION!" have plenty of tradition they'd be happy to dump.
True, that.
Everyone's letting the media control the election again.
No one gives a shit about 99% of the news being printed by these organizations.
Issue 1: How many nuclear weapons do we need? The infrastructure is falling apart, and young military officers no longer aspire to live underground in North Dakota, using 8 1/2 inch floppies to load the nuclear targeting coordinates.
Issue 2: Since one nuclear weapon costs as much as an F-22 to purchase and maintain, could we reduce the number instead of reducing the Army forces by 100,000 troops? Unclassified reports put the number of WMD at 2400 nukes.
Issue 3: Interest on the debt each fiscal year is now more than Veterans and Transportation. Basically this only benefits the top 1%.
Issue 4: Which candidate has a goal of reducing these interest payments?
It's obvious that the real reason for taxi medallions is to introduce artificial scarcity to benefit the taxi companies.
If public safety was the real concern then a background check on the driver and a regular safety inspection of the vehicle to be used as a taxi would be sufficient.
Anybody who passed the check would be issued a cab license for a nominal fee. Safety checks of vehicles would be issued for the cost of the inspection, perhaps $200 - $300 a quarter.
The purpose of taxi medallions is so that politicians can collect money from rent seeking cab companies.
That entire paragraph is a mess. Did Mr. McGurn really use a square pegs in round holes metaphor? Yes he did. What a square.
Paco Wové: "Freelancing == slavery?"
To the left, yes.
Which is why things are such a rip-roaring success in the leftist Peoples Paradise of Venezuela, where the gov't just ordered the farmers to turn over their goods to the State Stores!
'cuz your friendly left-wing national economic "controllers" always know what's best for you and yours.
BTW, this is on top of our lefty friends atop the socialist-paradise government in Venezuela nationalizing the toilet paper production facilities there!
Plus: Greece!
Ah. I love the smell of left-wing economic success in the morning.
.....smells like......fascism.
The problem with your fag hag "equality" argument is that we are all paying for the gay boys' great party that launched the AIDS epidemic.
So, on the most basic level, you reject personal responsibility, and thus libertarianism.
The gay boys are being kept alive by massive taxpayer funding for research for the drugs to beat back the results of butt fucking after they tried so hard to commit suicide by sex.
On the most fundamental level, you reject personal responsibility. You've turned the orgy in SF and NYC that launched the AIDS epidemic into another argument for "oppression." We straight men made the gay men kill themselves by the thousands. Trumping that, you've turned the suicide party into an argument for gay marriage, in the hope of creating an institution that will prevent your son from killing himself with the stereotypical gay male behavior.
These things can't be reconciled. We'll have to push the gays back into the closet at some point in the future. They'll kill us with the butt fucking orgy if we don't.
Fag hags like Althouse and her allies will have to be forced out of academia. Look at what they're doing. They're torturing, ridiculing and destroying your sons for wanting to fuck a vagina, and they're making heroes out of butt fucking men.
gig economy works great until the accident bill comes due...
"Anyone who has ever ridden in both a city taxi and an Uber knows that Uber gives a rider much more protection and oversight."
It makes sense--while cabbies are required to display their license info, they don't always do so and it can be hard to remember to write down the name if an incident occurs (and of course, if you're "disappeared" there may be no record of who picked you up). For Uber, there's a clear electronic record of who picked who up and when, which minimizes danger to the driver and passenger.
Plus, you can find out in real time how far your ride is from picking you up, and of course Uber can service neighborhoods that cabbies tend to avoid. It's a net gain for consumers--particularly poor ones, who often have no cab options but can at least have the option of getting an Uber ride (often cheaper than a cab).
Rusty: "People choose to become an Uber driver. People choose to use Uber. No one is forcing either party into this arrangement."
And therein lies the problem for our socialist brethren.
No opportunity for graft, expansion of the money-laundering dem/union-complex, etc.
Brando: " It's a net gain for consumers--particularly poor ones, who often have no cab options but can at least have the option of getting an Uber ride (often cheaper than a cab)."
Again, this does not help the dems who require folks to remain helpless on bureaucrats and gov't provided services.
A further irony: Ibsen's An Enemy of the People is about the idealistic would-be regulator who crashes the town's economy. In Norway. Which is yet another irony.
Marriage is a state monopoly. They sucker people into buying a license, and giving them a shit-load of benefits, and then the couple find out, that the benefits aren't worth the aggravation of having some fat fuck lying in bed with them, or some shiftless skunk who refuses to get a job.
Then the monopoly takes over, the colleges can't create enough lawyers fast enough to cash-in on these in-bred fuckers, and walk them through the state courts.
See, I do have a cynical side, I'm not just a flower...
I would venture that those who hate on Uber do not use the service, do not have a need for the service and probably do not have the credit necessary to establish an account.
Cabs are uniformly horrible. Whether in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York or Atlanta the cabs you ride in will be old, dirty and driven by people listening to their radios or talking on their phones while you get seasick in the back.
Uber cars are clean, the drivers talk only if you want them to talk, they keep their radios off, you do not get seasick riding in them. When you emerge you do not have to calculate a tip, you do not have to fumble in your pocket in the back of a stinking cab for your money and you do not have to wait for change. You can then elect to rate your driver. If your driver gets X number of bad ratings he will be dropped from Uber. Can you rate your cab driver? No, you cannot.
Uber is an excellent service. The drivers are insured. The drivers do not rape their riders.
To repeat, the people opposing Uber do not have the credit to ride in Uber.
"To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, "
Bullshit. Your comment caused me to stop reading the comments and avoid the rest. You are fixated on this because of your son.
PS:
Recent cab ride from LAX to Santa Monica cost about $50. From Santa Monica to Downtown LA, about twice the distance, about $30.
Atlanta: home to airport in a cab is around $50. Uber: $28.
Some people may wonder why I don't delete Shouting Thomas's posts.
The answer is: He makes an argument for same-sex marriage that supporters of same-sex marriage won't make. It's extremely effective (until it's not). At some point, people will just skip it or maybe decide it's all an act and he himself intends to make the argument I think he's only making in spite of himself. That would be old.
Yes, I do have the gall to directly identify you as an enemy, prof.
You are. A very lethal, depraved and vicious enemy.
That's the nature of a fag hag. Always has been.
The argument isn't theoretical or intellectual. It's experiential. Humans have had to deal with depraved fag hags for thousands of years. The outcome is always the same.
Your vanity is that this is something new.
Issue 3: Interest on the debt each fiscal year is now more than Veterans and Transportation.
You wanted free shit. This is what it costs.
"To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, "
Not really. Since no issue will result from this union. All that you've done is to successfully redefine the term "marriage". The substance of why the state had a vested interest in male to female "marriage" still exists.
Michael wrote, "Uber cars are clean, the drivers talk only if you want them to talk, they keep their radios off, you do not get seasick riding in them. When you emerge you do not have to calculate a tip, you do not have to fumble in your pocket in the back of a stinking cab for your money and you do not have to wait for change. You can then elect to rate your driver. If your driver gets X number of bad ratings he will be dropped from Uber. Can you rate your cab driver? No, you cannot."
And the rub is, all of these features could have been implemented by traditional Taxi Cab companies and they did not. And they still aren't.
I'm not here as a representative of a group or to win an argument, prof.
I'm here to strip away the thicket of intellectual bullshit and the web of legalist crap that you weave.
You're a fag hag. Fag hags are turned on by men fucking one another in the ass. So turned on that they don't care about the consequences of the butt fucking.
I'm here to tear away your stupid pretensions that your fag hag perversion has something to do with intellect, reason and legalism.
It's all about your twat twitching over men and butt fucking. There is nothing else there.
Maybe you should have a vote as to whether to ban SHT from posting at this site. It would also be nice to have a function whereby one could simply x out certain commentators and have their posts hidden while you remain logged in through your G account. Life is too short. . .
Shouting Thomas, you are doing yeoman's work making opponents of same sex marriage look like spittle-flecked lunatics. If your intent is to make your viewpoint toxic, keep it up. (The only reason I'm posting this is that in the past you've shown that you could make reasonable arguments. If you don't want to go the way of "secret routers" and "reparations" you might want to reconsider your currently preferred style of engagement.)
To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, making the same options open to different kinds of human individuals
No it wasn't. Prior to gay marriage, gay men had the right to marry a woman, and gay women had the right to marry a man, just like straight people did. Gay marriage created the ability of a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman.
Mark said...
The gig economy worked great when the seeing eye dog was put into the trunk by an Uber driver, and when disabled people were refused service.
It's not the business model, it's Muslim drivers.
@Virgil Holts
Look into the Blog Comment Kill file extension for Google Chrome or Firefox browsers. You'please be glad you did.
I know there's an argument that gay marriage diminishes the value of marriage for heterosexual people
It isn't marriage, is why. The value isn't diminished but completely disappears from the vocabulary.
Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless.
Suing the city for a taking is most probable.
And the rub is, all of these features could have been implemented by traditional Taxi Cab companies and they did not. And they still aren't.
Bingo. Instead of addressing why Uber appeals to so many people the default "progressive" position is to support the government-controlled status quo. The Permanent Class Struggle must not be challenged!
It is not Giant Faceless Corporations who'll be damaged and lose money when people stop taking cabs.
It's not Giant Faceless Corporations that benefit when poor people pay less for transportation, either.
PS the assholes posting at Instapundit these days aren't helping with their catchphrase chortling over "insufficient opportunities for graft".
Helping whom? Are you at all troubled by how universally public "servants" are enriched?
I really don't give a fuck about banning.
I worked for a corporate law firm.
The gay marriage fiasco is the doing of the Mandarin class that owns and operates corporate law firms. The obsession with fagdom is, first, a class and status marker. The prof is obsessed with class and status markers.
There is nothing new here either. As a society becomes more and more affluent, the Mandarin class embraces ever more depraved and useless behavior to display its power and status. (Not incidentally, that Mandarin class also played a huge role in the massive mortgage loan ripoff, probably the most devastating and immense ripoff in human history.)
I'm really just here to tell you fucking jackasses to fuck off. I'm retired and financially independent now, and I don't have to kiss your asses anymore.
I don't have to bow down, kiss your ass and salute your fag hag lies, Althouse.
Every once in a while I like to remind you. There is somebody out here who knows just how bad your shit stinks.
The answer is: He makes an argument for same-sex marriage that supporters of same-sex marriage won't make.
Because of course, the supporters of gay marriage have no assholes and haters....right?
Tell that to all the people who have been lynched by the Progressive lynch mob the last couple of years.
There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow. It won't be a matter of individual choice like staying single versus getting married.
There you are wrong, Ann. It is not that "gig economy" replaces "traditional jobs wit desirable benefits and protections". It is that the "gig economy" replaces not having a "traditional job" as the regulatory and taxation state has driven the "traditional jobs" away.
As others have noted, when you artificially raise the cost of hiring an employee by adding unwarranted regulations and costs, when you artificially intrude into the marketplace, the marketplace reacts. All people, regardless of which side of the employee/employer relationship they are on, want to maximize their reward. When the state imposed costs become too high, the market shifts to follow the path of maximum reward. This example is caps verses Uber. Uber is a "better" answer to state controlled cabs that would not likely have come about if the state was not so oppressive. The replacement is a more responsive, more responsible, and more rewarding (for both sides) answer than what the state "approves" of.
As to your gay marriage arguments, If that "now" makes us equal in the realm of marriage, what of the poor stigmatized polygamist? Don't they deserve the same legal protections as SSM? What about "group" marriages of multiple men and women? Don't they deserve the same legal protections as well? If marriage is not just "one man and one women", what is the legal bases for preventing three men from marrying or three women from marrying? What is so special about the number 2? That mythical slippery slope has grease on it...
And as to Cookie, all of that "slave" stuff gets old. No one holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to work for Uber or to take an Uber cap. Drivers "find" Uber as it offers them more reward than the alternative. Same with the Uber riders. The Uber experience offers them more reward than the alternative. Your arguments continue to devolve. Grow up.
Thanks Campy, I will try it! - VH
I don't see much need to regulate Uber any more than the government regulates Slugging or regulates me giving my buddy $15 to get me to the train station.
If I don't need a license to slug to get vehicles into HoV lanes during prime time, I can't see a legal rationale for forcing Uber to be more regulated.
Virgil Hilts said...
Maybe you should have a vote as to whether to ban SHT from posting at this site.
Strongly disagree. His views on race are invariably informative.
Jobs end. It is not always a matter of individual choice. Ask the buggy whip makers what they thought of Henry Ford. Ask the old time TV repairmen what the think if modern solid state TVs.
Not an enemy of the people, but of entrenched interests.
"People think Uber is great for the same reason that they thought Napster was great."
-- I think comparing Uber to Napster is illogical. Napster was about getting something for nothing; Uber is about getting a better deal on an artificially scarce resource.
Robert Cook: Individuals having to work any "gigs" they can get at whatever meager compensation may be offered can hardly be called "negotiating" for themselves, (unless one thinks slaves on the cotton plantations could be said to have "negotiated" for themselves when they decided to pick cotton rather than be whipped.)
OK, Cookie, let's concede for the sake of argument that many workers in the U.S. right now are in a poor negotiating position for reasons beyond their control (and I'm no libertarian, and will concede that). How, exactly, will letting the rent-seekers glom onto Uber fix this problem to any degree?
Example - a man I know drives for Uber. He's in his fifties, otherwise in various states of un- and under-umployment, and, yes, he's doing this because he's one of those hard-working, once successful members of the American middle-class who's been pole-axed by changes in the economy. He takes whatever work he can get - and, at his age, he doesn't get many offers. It's not as if the existing, regulated cab services where he lives would give him the time of day. What do you want him to do, Cookie? Go on the dole until the glorious day when Labor once again manages to get some leverage against Capital? Or starve? Whatever, he'll be dead before the current cycle of globalization and disruption plays out.
Another man, a recent immigrant, drives for Uber as a second (or is it third?) job. He could hardly get a non-Uber taxi job in the hyper-regulated city he lives in. Would you rather he instead go on the dole to make ends meet?
The problems with structural unemployment and stagnant wages in this country are huge, entirely inter-meshed with the global economy, and we could probably agree that they are exacerbated by the cronies and rent-seekers on the "capital" side you so deplore. But why you think anything is going to be fixed by letting more rent-seekers onto the playing field, I do not know.
"Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless ... Suing the city for a taking is most probable."
BUT the municipalities originally sold the medallions for a nominal sum. It was the secondary markets that bid medallion prices into the stratosphere. Even if the original buyers had a claim against the city, why would you have a claim against the city if you didn't buy your medallion from the city?
The arguments Anglelyne puts forward are similar to ones about the minimum wage. There's a trade-off. Regulating the taxi cabs makes life better for those who benefit from the regulation, but hurt anyone who can't. Where the politics comes in is deciding WHAT trade off we're willing to accept [what level of better jobs for fewer jobs compared to more jobs for not as high paying jobs].
Republicans, I feel, are generally in favor of more quantity, even the quality takes a hit [since that is still a net increase in wealth], while Democrats feel that higher quality can be had without a hit to quantity. Which is why Democrats are always surprised when prices go up after the minimum wage and marginal workers get laid off.
I've never used Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, or any of the other gig services. Still, it seems to me an efficient way for someone who owns an asset such as a car or home to make some additional income. Reports show that over 90 million Americans of working age aren't working. Millions more are only able to find part time jobs for a variety of reasons. If you can make some additional money hiring yourself out as a driver using a service like Uber, how are you harmed? How is this different from a graphic artist or construction worker taking odd jobs on the side?
It's true that established taxi companies don't like the competition. I doubt hotels like the competition from Airbnb either. What business welcomes competition that can undercut their costs? I'm uncertain how they handle the insurance implications of renting out your home or driving a private car commercially. My car insurance policy explicitly excludes commercial use of my vehicles. Perhaps Uber provides the insurance. I honestly don't know.
How is "faggotry sucks" an arg for faggotry? What is the pro-fag argument he is making for you? Discrediting anti-fags as meanies?
"BUT the municipalities originally sold the medallions for a nominal sum."
-- I never understood why these medallions were transferable. Did nobody know this would happen, or was this an intended consequence?
"How is this different from a graphic artist or construction worker taking odd jobs on the side?"
-- Because the elite view one as respectable and the other as not, primarily.
"-- I never understood why these medallions were transferable. Did nobody know this would happen, or was this an intended consequence?"
I think the bigger issue is that the medallions are scarce. They wouldn't go for a million dollars apiece if the city issued them to any cabbie who could pass basic licensing requirements for safety and criminal background checks.
This is about cartels. The concern trolling about "safety" coming from the Left is touching but mindless, particularly as Uber is far safer than cabs.
There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow. It won't be a matter of individual choice like staying single versus getting married.
Much of the stuff of the traditionaljobs is there due to government regulation, which ruled out many possible choices between an individual and an employer.
And getting married has never been an individual choice, you always had to convince someone else to agree to marry you. Likewise, in the gig economy, you can take any kind of gig you can convince an employer to offer you ( except for the arrangements that the government prohibits. )
Not enough opportunity for graft and corruption via Uber. There's a valid fear of broken rice bowls among the DemCong.
Freedom is hard.
Uber = Slavery???? Stupid argument on stilts.
Our resident class warriors would be more accurate if they argued that those who get gigs through Uber and AirBnb are privileged (for those who subscribe to that concept of class warrior pandering). One has to have a good car to be an Uber driver and good place to rent out for AirBnb. The truly poor do not have such assets to utilize to better their situation.
But most progs don't actually care about the poor, they just don't like the wrong people making money in a not-approved way.
Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless.
Nah. Teach people lessons in assuming a gov't protected monopoly is a great business is a better idea.
"Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless."
-- Are they worthless or just worth less?
If marriage is not linked to childbearing and is not presumed to be permanent, then it's simply a contract between two people who agree to share resources and expenses. For some reason, the state gives them inheritance benefits and tax breaks for entering into a resource-sharing agreement.
Sex can't be an essential part of state marriage once the 'childbearing' part is gone, because the courts have given Americans a right to privacy. So the state has no way to determine whether you have a sex and economic arrangement or simply an economic one.
Since we've lost the taboo on premarital sex and childbearing, I wonder what's to prevent business partners from 'marrying' to dodge death taxes, while maintaining lovers and children on the side.
If you belong to certain religious traditions, doing that would be 'causing scandal' and be a grave sin.
However, most Americans no longer belong to those religious traditions.
When the state decides that 'marriage' has become meaningless and starts removing benefits, I assume the break on death taxes in going to be the first to go-- because that's where the money is.
It's going to stink for young widows and widowers with kids, though. Actually, especially the widowers, since the social safety net seems geared to women.
The problem is the notion that Progressives, or any other Government Stooge, is competent enough to judge what is a "good" job for people to have. They are decidedly NOT competent in doing this.
Also, experience shows that the Government Stooges are more interested in getting a cut of money, beyond the taxes collected, from business owners by using regulation to essentially force the unregulated business owner to bribe the politicians for less onerous regulations.
The main problem with the regulatory state is that our Government has morphed from protecting rights to running a legalized, mob-like protection racket bent on wetting it's beak in all aspects of economic life.
The author is right in his characterizing being named an enemy of the people for being popular without government consent or involvement. Government rent seeking destroys economic activity and is utterly corrupt in application.
"'Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless.'
"-- Are they worthless or just worth less?"
Either way. The Yellow Cab medallions are reportedly extremely expensive. If the city is going to permit Uber to become a competitive presence in the city--and I don't suggest they shouldn't--they should reduce the prices on medallions, and perhaps even provide rebates to the drivers who paid so much on the expectation it was a worthy investment that would be recouped through paid fares.
It is not Giant Faceless Corporations who'll be damaged and lose money when people stop taking cabs.
It's giant faceless government sanctioned cab monopolies that rely on government patronage, bribes and a closed market, who then rip off individual cab drivers with ridiculous cab badge charges that will lose money that isn't theirs to begin with and will be forced to actually compete to make money. That's who will be hurt.
Lets not pretend that government monopolized cab companies are in any way fair or ideal.
Individuals having to work any "gigs" they can get at whatever meager compensation may be offered can hardly be called "negotiating" for themselves, (unless one thinks slaves on the cotton plantations could be said to have "negotiated" for themselves when they decided to pick cotton rather than be whipped.)
Your assertion is unsupported by facts on the ground.
The trouble with this ridiculous assertion (that employees are slaves) is that no one has to work for Uber. They are free to use their vehicles to get themselves to any other job they want to have. It an utterly false premise to assume that Uber drivers have no other options in life and that Government is needed to intervene.
The government should NOT be protecting cab companies from the risks they took.
They don't protect any other business when the market changes out from under them. These folks tossed their lot in with the government, and that was a reasonable risk for them to take. What if NY made its subway even more efficient and fewer people started taking cabs? What if there was a ridiculous ice storm that lasted months and no one could drive? Should the government refund them some money then for bad luck?
Cab companies made businesses with a glaring weakness that was exploited.
Robert Cook
Reducing the price of medallions at the source, from the city, does nothing if there is a limit on the number of medallions. The price goes up because they can be traded.
Uber cars are owned and maintained by the drivers. Not always so with Taxis and there lies part of the quality difference.
Robert Cook said...
If the city is going to permit Uber to become a competitive presence in the city
7/22/15, 9:45 AM
Therein lies a big part of the problem. The city should have NO say. If their existing "service" is worthy, it will survive. If not, it won't. The government should be a neutral party to all activity. It should NOT be selecting winners and losers. Government has the "authority of the gun" and as such should be involved as little as possible in peoples lives and should only be doing those things that people can't do.
"What is so special about the number 2?"
Ooh, ooh, I know. It takes two to tango.
It takes one man and one woman to make a baby. That's the fundamental building block of humanity (and all other sexually reproducing species). That's where marriage came from. Support for the basic unit that maintains the species. It's not about equality, it's about biology. The number is 2 because three's a crowd (what with the third being useless). It's about a man and woman because that's the only combo that gets the job done. It's pretty basic really. The whole system was set in place millions of years ago. I guess it's too bad nature never figured out a way to get to equality.
Angelyne,
I do not suggest that anyone should not drive for Uber...or work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart, etc. People who need work need work and should take what work they can get.
My comment had to do with scorn for the notion conveyed by Brando's post that "individuals negotiating for themselves" are always the better arbiters of what jobs they should take and what pay and working conditions they find acceptable. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough, or acknowledge the abuses the powerful can and always make the powerless submit to--such as low pay, long hours, dangerous working conditions, etc.--because the powerful know the powerless are often desperate and have no other options. The individual, in short, does not have the power to actually "negotiate" with those doling out jobs, but must simply eat dirt and like it...or eat nothing at all.
This is why unions are effective--and hated by employers--as the powerless working individual gains power when joined with others, and they can force the powerful to actually negotiate for better pay and conditions. It's also why government regulations intended to restrict exploitative employment arrangements and dangerous working conditions are necessary.
On occasion, I read Shouting Thomas' comments on other sites. About music, religion, wives, Woodstock NY, his comments can be interesting and informative. Here I just skip them. He seems to have a thing about Althouse and her gay son. That's not a subject I am particularly interested in.
"a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow."
As Todd and Anglelyne have pointed out, you have your cause and effect reversed here. It's because traditional jobs have dried up – check out the BLS's labor force participation rate, now at its lowest level since 1977 – that the "gig economy" has had an opportunity to expand.
Arguably, Uber is a symptom of economic sickness – but not its cause. By banning it, you are just masking the problem.
Democrats seem to have this quaint notion that they can freeze the American economy into some fixed state like an ant trapped in amber, then tinker around the edges. I have no idea where they get this notion, especially since they proudly pose as the agents of change.
"This is why unions are effective--and hated by employers-"
I actually favor trade unions and the hatred is usually from employee to employer before the union comes on the scene. The next confrontation has begin and it is nurses and the Obamacare obsessed hospitals.
Trade unions which run apprenticeships, as they do in Germany, are a net benefit to society. The problem is with CIO-style industrial unions which usually kill off the industry like an inefficient parasite. Read "Crash Course" about the experiment with Japanese work circles at the UAW Saturn plant in Tennessee.
Public employee unions are going bring down society. It is quite a way along the path to destruction.
Like fracking, Uber is one of those areas where some level of safety regulation would strike me as a priori not unreasonable. It's just that rather than reasonable regulation, the government and activists want to use "regulation" to shut down these disruptive technologies completely (and, in the case of Uber, leave us stuck using terrible, untrustworthy, and unreliable licensed and regulated taxi services, or nothing). Which leaves me in the sub-optimal position of preferring no regulation at all to that.
Thoughtful comments from Angeline who understands the larger dynamic that many middle and lower class workers are trapped in, outside the usual red v. blue distraction. Unfortunately understanding the problem moves us no closer to reasonable solutions.
BUT the municipalities originally sold the medallions for a nominal sum. It was the secondary markets that bid medallion prices into the stratosphere. Even if the original buyers had a claim against the city, why would you have a claim against the city if you didn't buy your medallion from the city?
The taking is of the present value of the promise of exclusivity.
The city can't buy back its promise at the original value but only at the value it has at the moment.
If the city wanted to buy it back at the original value, it would have to have bought a call on it, or written it into the contract. Then of course it wouldn't have been able to sell it for so much.
My question is though, don't the regulations/safety regulations ALREADY exist, if we assume that we're getting licensed drivers with current insurance, who are employed/contracted by a responsible company that has filed the appropriate paperwork? There are targets for us to sue if something goes wrong, people to hold responsible, and pre-existing laws that we can use to enforce basic standards on them.
I just don't think we need any EXTRA laws to cover the safety we want from Uber/cab drivers.
"Reports show that over 90 million Americans of working age aren't working"
The conservative media trots out this number regularly to bash Obama [who I think is a joke and an abject failure btw] but I don't think it is meaningful since I believe it includes at least 50 million or more retirees.
"The individual, in short, does not have the power to actually "negotiate" with those doling out jobs, but must simply eat dirt and like it...or eat nothing at all."
Here's the thing--individuals actually do have that power. I don't mean "negotiate" in terms of sitting there across a table with lawyers and haggling over key parts of a labor contract--I mean the employer offers certain compensation and conditions for working for them, and the employee can accept it or turn it down. All of us do that all the time--it is why you aren't right now picking up shifts at McDonalds for your spare time (or if you are, then pick any other job you haven't taken). Choosing to work somewhere simply means you prefer it to the alternative of (a) any other job you can get, or (b) not working at all.
Now, you may note that "wait Brando, that's just it--you may have no alternatives, and not working may mean starving!" At which point I note that you can then argue that society (or government, if no private means will suffice) should step in and keep a person from starving by providing some social safety net for individuals who cannot live on a poor wage. While subsidizing a low wage (or no wage) has its own downsides (particularly, enabling people to work for so little that they have less incentive to demand higher wages) it at least does not try and get private employers to fulfill the safety net role by telling them "no matter what you value that work at, and no matter what an employee may be willing to take in exchange for their work, you must pay this amount instead". Sure, it's nice for government--you get to help the poor without directly paying anything! But it's a lousy way to manage an economy.
But we're not talking about the minimum wage here--we're talking about Uber and other "gigs" providing a way for people to make money that they didn't have before. That's a net plus--if Uber were required to pay more (via benefits) or required to hire people for set, inflexible hours, it would require driving up the cost of the service (hurting the consumer and possibly destroying the business) or driving away potential "employees" (as many may prefer the flexibile hours).
Clinton and company are trying to protect cartels here, not protect employees.
"The conservative media trots out this number regularly to bash Obama [who I think is a joke and an abject failure btw] but I don't think it is meaningful since I believe it includes at least 50 million or more retirees."
Yeah, not to mention students, the disabled, stay at home mothers--90 million is a misleading figure.
However, I understand the labor participation rate has been dropping lately. I don't think it's just due to Obama, as you note many are baby boomers retiring, and a lot of job categories are disappearing due to longer term trends. I don't expect it to change under a new president, either.
Robert Cook thinks we live in The Jungle and he is the only Upton communist Sinclair able to a make sense of the world. The similarity is that both authors are communists. But Uber is not a turn of the century meat packing plant.
Brando and AJ Lynch:
If you don't like the statistics, look at the trend lines. And compare those trend lines to the ones in the Japanese economy after massive Japanese government intervention in the late 1980s. Japan's "lost decade" continues more than 25 years later.
See, also, every other economy that has experienced Keynesian intervention.
And note that the predictions of those damned monetarists (e.g. Milton Friedman) keep happening in the real world.
Shouting Thomas sounds very angry. Crazy even.
Until you look back through history and realize that individuals, and then groups, and then entire nations have moved from words to war in a very short time. The other day, Ben Shapiro was threatened. Told he would be sent to the hospital because he kept calling a man sir and this man wanted everyone to recognize him as a woman. The group present all thought Shapiro deserved the threat. That it would be ok to send him to the hospital, because he was insulting this dudes choice.
Shouting Thomas is on the other side of this war. And while most of us here would chose to remain online and discuss our differences, we won't be given that choice forever.
This isn't going to end well for most of us. I pity my children and their generation.
"Where were you when this definition of marraige was changing?"
I guess I was sick that day.
you can enjoy McGurn's comparison. But I think it's a very bad argument.
You may think his is a very bad argument, but yours is a very silly argument, Ann, and you typically do not make silly arguments. Regardless of whether we can agree on the "equality" justification for changing the definition of a word that has survived many millennia, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the historical fact that including same-sex couples as candidates for marriage was an "innovation". That word is reasonably neutral and carries no particularly pejorative baggage.
Your tangential rant was an emotional response to the fact that McGurn does not accept your view about gay marriage, and you just went off on it. In that connection, I have two observations:
1. There is a nasty strain among the gay marriage crowd that would herd the rest of us into reedukation kamps until we get our heads 'fixed' about it and come out fully repentant for ever having thought otherwise and supportive of the shirt-lifters in their quest for acceptance and approval.
2. And there is also the gloating triumphalism that is not designed to facilitate repentance and support.
My kids are fully supportive, and it's to them that we boomers will leave this mess. So long as they're content with it........
-Krumhorn
"...individuals actually do have that power. I don't mean 'negotiate' in terms of sitting there across a table with lawyers and haggling over key parts of a labor contract--I mean the employer offers certain compensation and conditions for working for them, and the employee can accept it or turn it down."
That's not negotiation.
Either way. The Yellow Cab medallions are reportedly extremely expensive. If the city is going to permit Uber to become a competitive presence in the city--and I don't suggest they shouldn't--they should reduce the prices on medallions,
1) They should. The fee should be $100 at most for a medallion. And anybody competent should be allowed to buy one.
2) I don't think it's the city charging millions for them. It's holders selling them charging millions for them.
and perhaps even provide rebates to the drivers who paid so much on the expectation it was a worthy investment that would be recouped through paid fares.
Why should TAXPAYERS (governments have no money of their own) be forced to reimburse somebody who has been fucking them over for years because they have a terrible business model?
As was pointed out, they COULD have done what Uber is doing for years. They didn't, haven't, and won't.
This is why unions are effective--and hated by employers--as the powerless working individual gains power when joined with others, and they can force the powerful to actually negotiate for better pay and conditions.
But when that laudable goal is met --- the union remains and needs to justify itself. And all of the negatives inevitably follow.
Democrats seem to have this quaint notion that they can freeze the American economy into some fixed state like an ant trapped in amber, then tinker around the edges. I have no idea where they get this notion, especially since they proudly pose as the agents of change.
They always claim the GOP wants to return to the 1950's --- but the ENTIRE economic policy of today's Left is based on the 1950's. As I've said, to make their policies work, all we have to do is eradicate most of the industrialized world for decades. Then it'll be grand for a while for us.
Not so much for them, but oh well.
It'd also severely cut oil prices since demand will dry up.
Sure, there'd be millions of dead...but, you know, eggs and omelettes, right?
The city can't buy back its promise at the original value but only at the value it has at the moment.
It absolutely can.
And should.
Once people realize that they cannot RELY on a government monopoly to insure them revenue, behavior will change accordingly.
Again, if taxis weren't such shit, Uber wouldn't exist.
What is really weird is that the "gig" economy seems tailor made for a much more expansive welfare system. Free health-care, rent-help, food-help, etc.
Basically the government takes care of the benefits that a full-time job provides but then allows everyone to work as contractors.
I guess the opportunity for graft is too hard to pass up.
Although the Uber drivers who support the Dems over the GOP DESERVE to lose their gig.
I think the Republicans have made a huge mistake letting Progressives off the hook for their inane beliefs. They allow guys like Zuckerburg give to Democrats because he knows the GOP will stop the idiotic ideas the Dems have from going forward (such s, say, a huge minimum wage hike)/
"The government should NOT be protecting cab companies from the risks they took.
"They don't protect any other business when the market changes out from under them."
Are you kidding? What about the bank bailouts that saved the banks not because the "market change(d) out from under them," but as a result of their own risky, reckless, and even criminal behaviors.
The huge corporate entities receive all sorts of largesse from the government. They, in fact, are the largest recipients of government welfare.
Ha! Remember when Nancy Pelosi tried to sell Obamacare by saying now people could quit their corporate jobs and become artists and musicians? What are those, if not gig jobs?
This was supposed to be a positive thing!
"'This is why unions are effective--and hated by employers--as the powerless working individual gains power when joined with others, and they can force the powerful to actually negotiate for better pay and conditions.'
"But when that laudable goal is met --- the union remains and needs to justify itself. And all of the negatives inevitably follow."
Do you believe that when goals are met there is no need for the measures that helped achieve those goals to continue to protect them? Do you believe the goals will not be eroded and ultimately erased in the absence of that which brought about those goals?
"Robert Cook thinks we live in The Jungle...."
Wake up...we do.
Robert Cook said...
That's not negotiation.
7/22/15, 11:19 AM
That is not slavery.
Those people are free to choose to accept a job offer or refuse it. As part of the offer, they are free to negotiate for compensation. It need not result in an offer change for the option to negotiate to be there.
Ann Althouse said...To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, making the same options open to different kinds of human individuals. If the state of being married doesn't offer the benefits and protections a given couple wants, they don't have to marry. They can remain single.
Just from the excerpt you included, Professor, it sounds like McGurn is making a different point than the one to which you're responding--I'd bet he's looking at the issue from a freedom of association/freedom of contract angle and not the equality angle. One argument same-sex marriage supporters used was that civil marriage is a contract (really a bundle of contracts) between consenting adults and that as long as the state doesn't have a compelling reason to prevent that contract the couple ought to be able to enter into it. You're looking at the equality argument (that since opposite-sex couples could enter into such a contract equality demanded that same-sex couples ought to be able to enter into such a contract) but I think the subtle difference in McGurn's POV as expressed here is that he's considering "same-sex marriage" as a different contract than "opposite-sex marriage." He concludes that Libs were correct to champion the ability of people to freely enter into such a contract (and have it respected by the State) and chides Libs for not being willing to apply the same freedom of contract/freedom of association arguments to something like Uber in the economic realm.
Given that reading I don't think you disagree with the argument as much as you think you do!
"The trouble with this ridiculous assertion (that employees are slaves) is that no one has to work for Uber. They are free to use their vehicles to get themselves to any other job they want to have. It an utterly false premise to assume that Uber drivers have no other options in life...."
SGT. Ted, you seem to believe we live in a nation--in a world--where near 100% employment is easily attained, if only the leeches and the lazy would get up off their asses and drive their late model Cadillacs to fill the surplus of living-wage paying good jobs available everywhere one turns.
You are mistaken.
SGT. Ted, you seem to believe we live in a nation--in a world--where near 100% employment is easily attained
If he believes that, he is correct.
That's the beauty of living in a nation like ours. We have equal opportunity, just not equal results.
Now, I'll grant you, there are some people who are incapable, mentally or physically due to a handicap, but every healthy adult? Yeah, 100% employment is easy in the United States.
The hard part is getting off your ass and trying.
Robert, not even the people around at the time The Jungle was written lived in that world--the book is quite forthrightly propaganda (Sinclair was ever after upset that people took away the message that industrial food prep was dirty and needed reform and not that a worker's revolution was needed--he succeeded too well in a way!).
Everyone hates monopolies until the monopoly involves someone they like, apparently. Labor unions are monopolies of labor--of workers in a particular industry, etc. The Left hates monopolies when the beneficiaries are fat cat capitalists but loves monopolies when the beneficiaries are (or are supposed to be) workers. I've never been persuaded by the assertion "but it's different for us!" but apparently most people are.
rhhardin said...
Something has to be done about taxi drivers that bought medallions with the city promise of exclusivity and now find them worthless.
Suing the city for a taking is most probable.
rhhardin, while in theory I agree with you, as I understand it they wouldn't have much of a case. While I'm emphatically not a lawyer I do think the rule is generally that regulatory changes typically don't merit State compensation unless the regulation takes the value of the property to $0 (or very near it). I'll have to look it up but the S. Court case I'm thinking of involved a municipality that made some change (to zoning, I think) that greatly diminished the value of a property. The owner sued for compensation and I don't remember which party won but I think the opinion was written by Justice Scalia and essentially said if the value was entirely wiped out it was a taking but if the value was merely reduced it was not. Prof. Epstein was critical of the decision (I'm remembering from an old podcast of his) and said the decision didn't establish a clear rule--so what if the regulatory change diminished the value by 10%, or 51%, etc--presumably it wouldn't be a taking or at the very least whether it was a taking would be unclear from the Court's ruling.
At any rate allowing Uber to operate doesn't make the medallions worthless (they're still an imprimatur of state sanction to operate an exclusive service, etc) even if it increases competition and greatly reduces the value of the medallions. Based on that I don't think the taxi drivers would win.
Now, whether they SHOULD (under a proper understanding and application of the Constitutional takings doctrine)...
"Robert Cook thinks we live in The Jungle...."
Wake up...we do.
Comrade Cookie (I'm not thrilled with Bolshie Bob, lets try this one for a while) would much prefer that we all live in the Gulag Archipelago.
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council 1992
Pertinent portions from the summary:
"Regulations that deny the property owner all "economically viable use of his land" constitute one of the discrete categories of regulatory deprivations that require compensation without the usual case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. "
[note the "all economically viable" qualifier]
"Because it is not consistent with the historical compact embodied in the Takings Clause that title to real estate is held subject to the State's subsequent decision to eliminate all economically beneficial use, a regulation having that effect cannot be newly decreed, and sustained, without compensation's being paid the owner. However, no compensation is owed -- in this setting as with all takings claims -- if the State's affirmative decree simply makes explicit what already inheres in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership. "
[I'm still not a lawyer but it would seem to me the question then becomes to what degree do taxi medallions match the real estate example here, and more importantly what are the State's traditional justifications and explicit purposes for issuing medallions--if the regulatory change allowing Uber comports with those (or at least doesn't directly contradict them as interpreted by the State itself) then the taxi owners wouldn't be able to claim the change is a taking.]
Epstein paper on Lucas from 1993 (may or may not speak to the issue, I haven't read it yet)
"There is a much more realistic concern that traditional jobs — with desirable benefits and protections — will dry up as "gig economy" work structures grow. It won't be a matter of individual choice like staying single versus getting married."
I am so glad you're not an economics professor.
"Are you kidding? What about the bank bailouts that saved the banks not because the "market change(d) out from under them," but as a result of their own risky, reckless, and even criminal behaviors."
I oppose crony capitalists and corporate and farm welfare, too, dude.
"That's not negotiation."
It most certainly is--negotiation does not require constant counteroffers and haggling--it can be as simple as deciding whether or not to buy a product from a store.
Now, if you choose not to buy say a pear at the grocery, because the grocer wants $5 for that pear, and the grocer points out that he cannot feed his family unless everyone comes in and buys his stock of pears for $5 each, and the government agrees with him and requires you to buy the pear at $5--well then that is no different from the government requiring the grocer to hire someone to stock for him at $15 an hour and not a penny less.
I get your point that many employees often are in dire straits and are forced to take low wage jobs and this is terrible for them, but my point is that making the employer pay a higher wage is not the answer to this. If the work is worth a certain dollar amount to the employer, requiring him to pay more than that means he will decide not to have the work done at all--just like the grocery customer who decides not to buy the $5 pear.
A libertarian would argue that the best solution would be to enable the market to grow so there's enough competition for labor that the opportunity for higher wages grows, and a collectivist might argue that the best solution is to provide a social safety net for lower wage employees. But mucking around in the private negotiations between employer and employee has negative consequences that aren't always easy to measure (because who can say exactly why an employer didn't hire more people?).
"Lets not pretend that government monopolized cab companies are in any way fair or ideal."
But it's the system that exists now. You to to war with the army you have, not the army you want. Obviously it would be best if there just weren't such stringent artificial limitations on cab-company operations, but just saying "fuck 'em, ain't my fuckin' problem" isn't something that makes people think you have everyone's best interests in mind. It's more likely that people will think you're just in it for cheaper cab fares.
I wonder if Uber drivers make more or less than cab drivers.
Mark "halojones-fan" down as opposed to economic progress. What terribly illiberal, anti-progress Progessives we have these days.
Meanwhile, Robert Cook seems to think conservatives were in favor of 1) the regulations that required risky loans by banks AND 2) bank bailouts. History and long experience notwithstanding...
"It's more likely that people will think you're just in it for cheaper cab fares."
Cheap cab fares! The horror!
Likely that your strenuous defense of rent-seeking will make bystanders question your even-handedness as well.
Public employee unions are going bring down society. It is quite a way along the path to destruction.
Every penny of property tax revenue in both Cook County and the City of Chicago go to pay public employee pensions. Think about it. An area with some of the highest property taxes in the country must use other tax revenue to pay for everything besides pensions.
I once owned an industrial building in Cook County. The property taxes were $14,000 a year. There are thousands , hell, tens of thousands of industrial and commercial buildings in Cook County. God only knows how many homes. All that tax money goes to pay pensions. And that doesn't cover the rest of the State.
halojones-fan said...
It's more likely that people will think you're just in it for cheaper cab fares.
7/22/15, 12:36 PM
Ah, but what is wrong with that?
If someone thinks that the person that delivers their pizza does not get paid enough, there is no law stopping them from tipping $100. THAT is the big difference between liberals and conservatives [that I see]. Liberals want to tip the delivery person with other people's money.
All of these liberal rich folks talk about how taxes should be higher all the while paying expensive tax accountants to shelter their money. If they think taxes should be higher, write a check and over pay their own taxes.
For all those [like Cookie] that think the "little" guy does not make enough money. The "easy" answer is to start your own business and pay your workers what you think is a "living wage". The reality is that running a business is hard. The bills need to be paid, the regulations need to be followed. It costs more and more every day to have an employee. Costs above and beyond the direct salary and benefits. Not understanding business and economics is behind all of the "raise the minimum wage" pushes. The people yelling for this don't have to deal with the result. Look at SF and Seattle today. Small local businesses shutting down due to the minimum wage hikes. The locals that supported the increases in wages don't or can't afford to pay the higher retail prices it brought. So instead of 10 people having $7 an hour jobs, we wind up with 3 having $15 an hour jobs while having to pay higher retail prices out of the increase along with the taxes to support the newly out of work. For socialists its a WIN/WIN. For those that live in reality, it is now marginally more difficult to make our own way (which to socialists is likely also a WIN).
"Look at SF and Seattle today. Small local businesses shutting down due to the minimum wage hikes. The locals that supported the increases in wages don't or can't afford to pay the higher retail prices it brought. So instead of 10 people having $7 an hour jobs, we wind up with 3 having $15 an hour jobs while having to pay higher retail prices out of the increase along with the taxes to support the newly out of work. For socialists its a WIN/WIN. For those that live in reality, it is now marginally more difficult to make our own way (which to socialists is likely also a WIN)."
I'd add that it's often harder to measure than that--often an employer will decide to lay people off due to a drop in business, or other costs going up (insurance, benefits) so it's hard to isolate whether the minimum wage hike made the difference. However, it clearly factors towards eliminating the job.
But there's also the unmeasurable stuff--like jobs that were never created in the first place, because the employer determined it is cheaper to find a way to get one employee to do two employees' work, or to automate. Now that may be good for the economy in some ways--more efficiency!--but it also could mean less productivity (where automatiion or extra work from existing employees is not possible, maybe the work is just not worth getting an extra person to do it). The labor market is better off with more freedom to contract between employer and employee. If government wants to eliminate hardships, it should find the least intrusive way to do that.
As for "WIN/WIN", it's still a loss for socialists (whether they realize it or not) because there's far less economic activity to sap for the treasury.
Todd said, Not understanding business and economics is behind all of the "raise the minimum wage" pushes.
I have always maintained that liberals are like high school kids who never want to do their math homework
HoodlumDoodlum said Just from the excerpt you included, Professor, it sounds like McGurn is making a different point than the one to which you're responding--I'd bet he's looking at the issue from a freedom of association/freedom of contract angle and not the equality angle.
McGurn went and uttered the phrase 'gay marriage" and rendered Althouse incapable of rational thought.
Re: Halojones-fan
It's more likely that people will think you're just in it for cheaper cab fares.
That, but also a smoother ride, a more pleasant driver, and the certainty of knowing that when I ask for a car, a car will actually show up. I am sure there are places where cabs don't feel like deathtraps operated by people with an imperfect grasp of the local traffic laws, but I live by Washington D.C.
(In fairness, after Lyft and Uber started operating in DC, the cabs have gotten orders of magnitude better than they used to be. But the quality and reliability of their service is still noticeably inferior, and there were those incidents a few years ago where a bunch of cabbies were assaulting their female passengers.)
Deirdre Mundy said: Since we've lost the taboo on premarital sex and childbearing, I wonder what's to prevent business partners from 'marrying' to dodge death taxes, while maintaining lovers and children on the side.
What's to prevent a father from 'marrying' his son to keep the government from seizing inheritance tax?
Doug-- right now, the incest laws.
But the state's 'compelling interest' in incest laws is to prevent sick babies, and so there really IS no compelling interest in same-sex incestuous marriage.
Actually, with premarital genetic testing and widespread contraceptive use, the state no longer has a compelling interest in preventing opposite sex incestuous marriage either.
I mean, why do we forbid incest? Because people think it is icky. But 25 years ago, most people though SSM was icky, too.
And the Supreme Court seems to think that "People think it is icky' is not a good basis for forbidding things. So.... I expect the first incest suits will be soon. Sooner than the polygamy suits, actually. Because incest doesn't change the 'contract between 2 people' aspect of marriage.
What I don't understand, and can't get my head around, is why so many SSM-supporters find it offensive to even suggest further changes to the contract law surrounding marriage.
I mean, is it true outrage that legal definitions can change? Or is it mock outrage, because marriage is only desirable if it excludes those you find 'icky?'
"(In fairness, after Lyft and Uber started operating in DC, the cabs have gotten orders of magnitude better than they used to be. But the quality and reliability of their service is still noticeably inferior, and there were those incidents a few years ago where a bunch of cabbies were assaulting their female passengers.)"
If you want cabs to be better, make sure they have competition from other alternatives. If you want an employee to be better, make sure they know they can be fired or promoted based on their performance. If you want better government, make sure the people in charge know they can be voted out.
Get rid of accountability and competition and you get the same thing in all walks of life.
Homosexual or transsexual couplets. The "equal" -- congruence, really -- movement was about establishing equivalence, which is notable for its principle of selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice). With the State-establishment of equivalence, coupled with sacrificial rites [and sales] (e.g. "Planned Parenthood"), there is no longer a principled defense to exclude a diverse range of orientations and behaviors.
Someone upthread said, it bears repeating: The politicians opposing Uber have not in the past 3 decades ridden in a cab. Can you picture Hillary!! in a cab? She's being driven around in a tax-funded limo. Ditto the mayor of New York. Yet they oppose something they never use.
I've never ridden in an Uber cab. I should do so here in Madison -- the cabs in from the airport (when my wife cannot pick me up) are not pleasant.
On the radio, they run ads about the dangers of using unlicensed contractors. But the folks who built the faulty balcony had paid out millions in settlements for shoddy work and were still licensed. They pai the fee each year and the state sent them the license, no questions asked.
I think it's the same with taxis. If the regulators really checked the cabbies out, made sure service and safety were consistent and took real action against bad cabbies, there might be an argument. But my experience suggests the difference between a cabbie and Uber is how many fees the regulators collect. Not actual quality of service.
" Not actual quality of service. "
I took a brand new Cadillac to Reagan Nat'l Airport from Virginia with bottled water and mints at my behest for the same price as a dirty smelly cab thanks to Uber.
It's amazing when someone uses their own property for business how much more care and consideration they take with it.
EMD
Bingo.
Plus the air conditioner worked. Plus the driver was not listening to Radio Lahore. Plus the car still had a working suspension system. There are a dozen reasons why Uber is better. Sometimes cheaper but always better.
uber doesn't offer enough opportunities for graft. simple.
@Deirdre Mundy - you have made my point exactly. Incest laws cannot withstand an onslaught from lawyers who will insist that if one man can marry another for financial benefit, then a father can marry a son, a mother can marry a son, and on and on, without the law being able to slow them down for a second.
"To end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage — while marriage remained an option for heterosexual couples — was a matter of getting to equality, making the same options open to different kinds of human individuals."
Heterosexual marriage offers a large number of well documented benefits to society. So society rewards it.
Do you have any proof that same sex "marriage" offers the same benefits to society? No?
Then your demand for "equality" is essentially a demand that apples and oranges be treated the same. In other words, it's somewhere between ludicrous and lunatic.
And in defense of this lunacy, decent human beings will have their lives, religious liberties, and businesses destroyed by the intollerant haters of the Left.
Sorry, no sale.
I don't see why the complaint about McGurn's language, revolutionary is an apt word to describe the change to the understanding of marriage. The traditional understanding was focused on the outputs of a marriage - usually along the lines of potential children and the merging of family land holdings and assets (hence arranged marriages). Society has turned this around so that marriage is now focused on the inputs.
However much you may harp about the supposed inequality on the input side, there is definite inequality in outputs. The truth is that any society can survive without gay marriages, as all have until now. They are much less likely to survive if the traditional M/F marriages run into trouble, particularly on the child-producing element. The fact that the West in general hates children is indicative of the troubles marriage has been facing in general.
I mean really, besides delaying them until the right time, having relatively fewer than before, killing the inconvenient ones, making them exorbitantly expensive to raise, and then trading them back and forth between mom and dad's house as so much chattel, we then stick them at a desk for the majority of their formative years, waste their prime chasing certifications that may cost more than a house to obtain to hopefully land an increasingly-scarce good-paying job where they get to toil to pay for mom and dad's Medicare and Social Security, just for the whole system to go broke by the time they retire and inherit tens of trillions of unpaid debt run up by their forbears.
"It's amazing when someone uses their own property for business how much more care and consideration they take with it."
That could of course be true of cabs, but the bigger issue is how much better service someone will provide when they know you could just as easily go to their competitor.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন